Is a bit crazy to do this, but it's probably to stop just anyone from getting in to the conference

So in essence, wouldn't that mean that enacting a law to vote with photo ID would reserve all voter fraud to the fabulously wealthy, who can afford these fake IDs?

Not exactly.  It would still be expensive as hell to do and put a real cost to fraud that even goes undetected though.  Which means a lot when the average case is likely one guy voting 2-3 times because he knows other people who won't be able to vote.

It's not as restricted to the rich as say... hiring a quality hit man to kill someone.

In general too, done in LARGE doses would mean there would be a fairly large money trail.  So if a Koch or Soros tried to do it, there would be a financial footprint someone might uncover.  Either now or later.

B) Not for numbered accounts.  There are many people who don't want to be "in the system" so some banks offer accounts not tied to a person directly and require no id to show

B2) Oh, we are arguing different points.  I am not saying people can't get IDs, I am saying people don't have IDs, not valid ones anyway, and that is why I am having problem with the timing of this.  I am sure the number of people who are actually unable to get IDs is tiny

D) Of course there is a chance to get caught.  Problems with the signatures matching could tip off an investigation.  Someone who goes to vote and has already had someone vote for them, etc.  If these investigations just don't happen, then that is part of the problem

E) You certainly don't need a good fake ID.  If a simple chalked ID is good enough to fool the guy at the grocerie store, something similar is good enough to fool the retiree volunteering to work the polls.

You can't use the specter of a problem to say "see there is a problem."  Your argument could just as easily be reversed and I could claim you have no proof there IS a problem.  so why the outrage?  why the sudden, pressing need to resolve this "problem"

There is a solution that requires no extra money, and no extra actions on the part of the actual voters as it should be:

To maintain these ids, there will need to be a picture database any.  Instead of requiring IDs, the first time a person goes to vote, take their picture and add it to the database tied to their registration, so it can be compared when they vote next time.  Then if people vote multiple times, their picture is there and available in the database.  That will be a much greater deterant than having an ID, will require no new action on the part of the voter, providing no barrier to them, and really only require a laptop.

B) Except... you can't.  Giving out numbered accounts is illegal.  

In an effort to reduce money laundering, U.S. financial institutions are required to verify the identity of every individual who opens a bank account. In compliance with federal regulations, all banks operating in the U.S. have established Customer Identification Programs (CIPs) that they must follow when opening a new account. While the specifics of the CIP may vary from one bank to another, all banks are required to request the following information from you:

• Name
• Date of birth
• Street address (P.O. boxes are not allowed)
• An identification number

A non-U.S. citizen's identification number may be one or more of the following:

• Taxpayer identification number
• Passport number and country of issuance
• Alien identification card number
• A number and country of issuance of any other government-issued document evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard

http://www.luc.edu/oip/bank_account.shtml

(Or an ITIN if your an illegal alien... but the ITIN requires non-citizen US identification.  Hence illegal aliens who come here without ID get screwed.)

B2) As for the timing... these laws were passed a long time ago.  It's the lawsuits about them that you are hearing now.

D) I'm going to guess that you don't know how signature Authetinication works.  To do proper signature authentication, one needs MULTIPLE samples of a legitamite signature to compare against the false one.  The amount of manhours and cost it would take to complete such an investigtion would be ridiculious.

E) The guy at the grocery store knows the ID is fake.  He just doesn't care.  He has plausable deniability, that's all he needs.

Additionally this isn't a suddent outrage.  Live I've said MULTIPLE times before, this has been an issue for about a decade and a half now.  This came to prominence in Bush VS Gore, when a number of voting fraud cases were found involving Florida.  They've been trying to adress this for a long time.

30 states have voter ID laws... and they've been passing pretty steadily and without much issue until the Democrats have started to make an issue about it.  The Indiana law for example that everyone talks about was passed in 2005.

Heck the "Help America vote" act in 2002 requires all first time voters to show ID.  Nobody was complaining then...

Nobody even complains with the states where you have to show a non-photo ID.  Even though most Non-photo ids cost money and not everybody has access to free non photo ids.

People are only complaining about photo ID requirements.  Which is well... stupid.  There isn't really a difference between Photo and Non-Photo Id, except Photo Id gives you an idea of what the person looks like and takes more effort to fake!

I'd note nobody is challenging the Rhode Island Voter ID Law that required Photo ID. (Just passed in 2011)  Why?  It was passed by Democrats.

The whole thing is stupid partisian grandstanding to try and push a "Republicans are racist" agenda before the election.  If it was a worry about timing, they wouldn't be trying to rule it unconstitutional, they would be asking for a stay on the order until after the elections.